Homosexuals just want that second-class marriage that older
couples are allowed. The one where no expects them to bear any children, but
they might end up raising some anyway. You know, the one where they are unable
to produce offspring, but are allowed all the rights and privileges that young,
fertile, heterosexual couples enjoy. They don't need that sacred,
baby-producing marriage certificate but only the infertile couple one.

What? They only issue one type of marriage certificate? How can that be?
Older couples marriages are biologically dead!

I don't think
you know any gay couples. There is plenty of female/male energy in that
relationship, just like, if you believe in metaphysics, there is plenty of
female/male energy in every human being. It is balancing each inside of you
that makes you whole - not finding someone who puts out the opposite energy as a
counter. I would condend that if that is what your marriage consists of, it
will truely struggle. The best marriages consist of two whole people.

blurMurray, UT

April 21, 2014 2:07 p.m.

While I can't think of one good reason why any two or more people
shouldn't be able to get married, I can think of several reasons why
homosexual marriage isn't equal to heterosexual marriage. First,
homosexual marriage runs counter to the rules of evolution. The marriage is a
biological dead end in all cases. Second, marriage was instituted to create a
stable environment where children would be raised by a male and female parent.
A homosexual marriage lacks the diversity that a heterosexual marriage brings
into a child's life. Third, from a metaphysical stand point a homosexual
marriage lacks the balance between male energy and female energy that a
heterosexual marriage brings.

Oh, by the way. As a heterosexual
male, I don't have the ' right' to get married. So, how can
anyone contend that a homosexual couple has the 'right' to get
married!?

Stormwalker Cleveland , OH

April 21, 2014 1:11 p.m.

@CBAX:

Actually, we are not be carried about by any doctrine. We are
talking about civil laws under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Back in the day, due more than anything else to religion, only white
protestant males were considered citizens who could vote and hold office.
Everyone else was second class... or worse.

We have made a lot of
progress since then. We no longer own slaves, Jim Crow is a bad chapter in
history not a socially acceptable fact of life, women can vote and own property
and be elected to public office...

And now the Gays and Lesbians -
who have been part of every society in recorded history - are demanding to be
treated as equal citizens, too.

You are welcome to your doctrine, I
will stick with civilized laws, thank you very much.

CBAXProvo, UT

April 21, 2014 12:52 p.m.

Carried about by every wind of doctrine.

RanchHere, UT

April 21, 2014 10:05 a.m.

@Eliyahu;

Some trees, like Araucaria araucana for example, are either
male or female. Though, I think the first embrace would be the last of anybody
marrying this particular tree. :)

EliyahuPleasant Grove, UT

April 21, 2014 9:00 a.m.

Same ol' "slippery slope" arguments as always. If you can get that
tree into the clerk's office, prove that it is of legal age and competent
to enter into a contract, and it can sign the marriage license application, feel
free to marry it. Better be ready to prove that it's the opposite sex,
though, or you'll never have a Temple ceremony.

Meantime, we
need to outlaw opposite-sex marriage, or the next thing you'll see is
people wanting interracial marriages and same sex marriages. Opposite-sex
marriage clearly starts that slippery slope going downhill, so we should nip it
in the bud.

ObjectifiedTooele, UT

April 18, 2014 1:52 p.m.

@ Candied Ginger:

Yes, it's the established decorum for each
political party to attack one of their own who flip flops. How decisively strong
the attack happens depends on the issue involved. No surprise there.

But the point Tators seems to be making is that the press attacks much more
vehemently against Conservatives who change positions than they do against
Liberals who do the same thing. It's their proven bias which has been
demonstrated and noted time and time again. Even the New York Times doesn't
dispute they are strongly liberal leaning in their editorials and general
reporting.

Like you stated... when a conservatives switches to a
liberal stance, it's reported as positive news even though his fellow
conservatives get up in arms. But if a liberal switches to a conservative
posture on an issue, he's deemed worthy of crucifixion or ignoted
altogether. When liberals llike Obama switches sides (as Tators noted),
the press basically downplays it altogether. They seldom report on it
whatsoever. In fact, many people aren't even aware of the flip-flop Obama
did with this issue, because of the lack of attention the media gave it.

Sen. Rob
Portman of Ohio. Very opposed to SSM and gay rights in general and a raising
star in the GOP. Then his son came out to him and introduced his partner.

Sen. Portman got to see a same-sex-relationship in person, involving
somebody he cared about: his son. Suddenly it was real, not just political
posturing talking points and theory.

He switched positions and now
fully supports SSM.

He was crucified by the GOP, the TEA Party, and
religious leaders. The "liberal" press reported it as news. Both parts -
Portman's announcement, and the howling attacks as the right called for him
to be crucified.

TatorsHyrum, UT

April 18, 2014 9:00 a.m.

Its very interesting how Obama has done a complete flip-flop on this issue from
earlier in his presidency. When talking to a religious group from their church,
he earlier stated how his Christian beliefs made him feel and believe that
marriage indeed should be limited to between a man and and a woman. He left no
doubt that he supported traditional marriage.... when he felt that such a stance
would help him politically.

Fast-forward several years. As has
happened many times before when the winds of national political correctness
shift, Obama has now shifted his stance to become a SSM advocate before a larger
audience and to be inline with his party's liberal platform. Had a
Republican flip-flopped like that, the liberal press would've crucified
him.

Interesting indeed.

UT BritLondon, England

April 18, 2014 8:11 a.m.

AerilusMaximus

If you were a member of the church you wouldn't
be talking about plural marriage and sealings in that way. Being sealed is about
as real life as you can get in the church.Polygamy will be practiced again
on this earth, prophets have foretold this on more than one occasion. So we have
the prophets words, church doctrine and the fact that a man can be sealed to
more than one woman currently. If polygamy is made legal what would stop the
church from starting the practice again?

Oh and in this discussion
you can assume that the type of polygamy we are referring to is polygny.
Don't know why you brought that up really.

Values VoterLONG BEACH, CA

April 17, 2014 4:53 p.m.

Re: The subject of this news story -- Utah, Oklahoma cases being argued at the
10 circuit in Denver:

I've just finished listening to oral
arguments and I'd say it looks very good for Marriage Equality. Probably
not unanimous, but I wouldn't be at all surprised at a 2-1 ruling in favor
of the plaintiffs.

Polygamists don't join the church. If you are a
polygamist you can't join the church. If you become a polygamist you get
excommunicated from the church.

I already know and understand what
the church believes about polygamy. Yes I know you can be sealed to more than
one woman and such.

If you want to get technical about it. When a
man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called
polygyny;

Also it is hard to compare being sealed to more than one
wife vs. having polygamus relationships while on this earth.

tedward55Little Rock, AR

April 17, 2014 1:52 p.m.

@ LovelyDesert

If the court affirms the Oklahoma court decision,
doesn't that make the Utah case irrelevant as both states reside within the
10th Circuit jurisdiction? So why would they send that case back on remand?

SchneeSalt Lake City, UT

April 17, 2014 1:51 p.m.

@1 Voice"Banning interracial marriage was not in the best interests of
society and rightly so the policy was abolished."

I would argue
that banning same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society so the
policy should be abolished.

And my initial point was about slippery
slopes. If it's true that allowing same-sex marriage would necessitate
legalization of polygamy, etc, then is it also true that allowing interracial
marriage necessitates same-sex marriage, polygamy, etc? I keep seeing the
slippery slope argument used but the people who use it seem to ignore the fact
that it's interracial marriage and not same-sex marriage that set the
precedents for courts striking down marriage bans.

ShelamaSALT LAKE CITY, UT

April 17, 2014 12:52 p.m.

It will be nice when this is finally over and gay marriage is legal everywhere
and we can spend more time identifying actual problems to work on.

However delicious with irony, it will be nice that Utah and the Mormon church
facilitated this progress into the future.

I worry that the Mormon
church will opt to excommunicate gay Mormons who marry or Mormons who officiate
at their weddings but I don't see how they can avoid making that their
official policy.

But I'm heartened to know that those Mormons
would have lived their life correctly, with honesty and integrity, and with real
morality and real worthiness intact. And, just like everybody else, they will be
totally supportive of traditional marriage... the marriage that was never
threatened in the first place.

RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT

April 17, 2014 11:45 a.m.

To "Bob K" if you go back 30 years ago and asked people what they
thought of gay marriage, they would have said it was "weird and
unconscionable." The same with people living together before marriage, and
coutless other things that people commonly do now.

WillemLos Angeles, CA

April 17, 2014 11:41 a.m.

The conservative lawyer who defended California’s ban on gay marriage at
the Supreme Court is at work on another project: planning his daughter’s
upcoming same-sex wedding ceremony.

Charles J. Cooper, a former top
official in the Reagan Justice Department and onetime “Republican lawyer
of the year,” learned of his daughter’s sexual orientation during
the legal battle over California’s Proposition 8, according to journalist
Jo Becker’s soon-to-be-released book chronicling the movement to legalize
same-sex marriage.

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

April 17, 2014 11:32 a.m.

@1 Voice

actually you just helped him make his point as to why it is
the same, there has been based on the evidence presented the courts have
repeatedly found there to be no credible evidence to support the claim that
there is any harm to society by allowing same sex marriage. It may not be
convenient for your argument but it is just a fact of life. There is no
unturned leaves at this point the evidence has been thoroughly vetted and the
arguments against same sex marriage have been found to be wanting.

UT BritLondon, England

April 17, 2014 11:25 a.m.

AerilusMaximus

Elder Oaks is sealed to two women, although he is not
with them both on the earth at this time the idea is this will continue through
eternity. Polygamy is still a doctrine of the church.

AerilusMaximusBerryville, VA

April 17, 2014 10:46 a.m.

@ Esquire

You can not be a Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints and be in a polygamous relationship. You will be
ex-communicated if you are.

The church has already stated that
homosexuality is a sin. To have homosexual thoughts and feelings is not a sin
but when you act upon them it is. The same applies to those who engage in sex
before marriage.

Marriage according to the LDS Church is defined in
the "Proclamation on the family". You can find that by searching
Proclamation on the family.

UT BritLondon, England

April 17, 2014 10:43 a.m.

Esquire

The church would argue that the marriages were not performed
in the temple. We still do sealings of multiple women to one man in temples so
it should be asked why he could not be sealed to them in a Saudi temple.

1 Voiceorem, UT

April 17, 2014 10:25 a.m.

@schnee

your logic is flawed.

Banning interracial
marriage was not in the best interests of society and rightly so the policy was
abolished. People keep bringing that up as if it justifies doing things that
are not in the best interest of society.

EsquireSpringville, UT

April 17, 2014 10:25 a.m.

On the polygamy issue that keeps getting raised, the question and the covenant
are essentially relations with the person to whom you are legally and lawfully
married. If polygamy is legal in, say Saudi Arabia, and a polygamist joins the
Church, will the marriages be recognized by the Church. And if a gay marriage
is legal and lawful, same question. So do the questions and the covenants,
i.e., the doctrine, change?

1 Voiceorem, UT

April 17, 2014 10:13 a.m.

@ stormwalker

In Canada the government force SSM on the public
without their consent. No the world hasn't come to an end but there is no
evidence that this is in societies best interests.

Those of us who
support traditional marriage are not anti-gay for saying we believe there is a
purpose for our being here on earth. That purpose involves traditional
families. No not all traditional families are perfect but it is still worth
supporting as it is in the best interests of society. This doesn't mean we
discriminate against those who don't share our values. We just adhere to
our constitutional right to support causes we value. As for the right and
privileges of marriage for same sex and common-law relationships, these can be
handled in other legal ways.

SchneeSalt Lake City, UT

April 17, 2014 10:09 a.m.

@wrz

'You can't have equal protection for gays/lesbians re
marriage and not have the same equal protection for polygamist, marrying your
mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree, or a myriad of other possible marriage
combinations."

Do you oppose the Supreme Court having struck down
bans on interracial marriage because of this logic, or does that only apply to
gay people in your book?

AerilusMaximusBerryville, VA

April 17, 2014 10:08 a.m.

@ EstoPerpetua

You can believe whatever you want to believe and I
will continue to exercise my 1st Amendment right in telling you that it is NOT
ok to change the definition of marriage.

I think it is interesting
how it seems like the world has for probably most of my lifetime defined
marriage as "just another relationship." It seems like that is their
main push and goal.

It negates their greatest failure and allows
them to ignore it better.

No other success can compensate for failure
in the home. - David O. Mckay

1 Voiceorem, UT

April 17, 2014 9:55 a.m.

@ wrz

Polygamy is no different than SSM in terms of rights. However,
if the real issue isn't about rights (which it is not) than marriage can be
restricted when it is not in the best interests of society. If courts have ruled
polygamy isn't in the best interests of society (which they have) they can
rule SSM isn't in the best interests of society. If they rule SSM is about
equal rights then (to be fair in terms of equal rights) they should rule
polygamous, bigamous, and polygamous marriages are OK as well.

environmental idiotSanpete, UT

April 17, 2014 9:47 a.m.

In a way, I hope that this "marriage equality act" stands. It opens the
gate for polygamous marriage and equality for polygamists under the law. Just
think of the tax deductions that polygamists could claim! X number of spouse
dependents and a myriad of child dependents. Polygamy could become a huge tax
shelter. It is ironic that the people of the US who once claimed the ethical
high ground in maternal relationships and persecuted polygamists and decanters
of traditional monogamous relationships are now the advocates of "outside
the norm" unions.

The good part of all of this is it means the
tax code would have to be changed to a flat tax or marriage could bankrupt the
government.

EstoPerpetuaHolden, MA

April 17, 2014 9:42 a.m.

@Berryville

It is OK to support the original definition of marriage
as between a man and a woman but it is not OK to deny other Americans their
equal rights, such as same-sex marriage. This is a civil issue, not a religious
one, and Virginia will be joining equality soon.

dmcveyLos Angeles, CA

April 17, 2014 9:13 a.m.

Alfred, why does gay marriage mean that all these other things will be legal?
Children cannot legally consent so that would not have any merit. As far as
polygamy (which the Bible supports) if it's between consenting adults I
don't see a problem with it. Maybe some of the abuses of polygamous groups
toward women and children could be brought into the light if there was no longer
the fear of arrests and having children taken away.

UT BritLondon, England

April 17, 2014 8:40 a.m.

@Bob K

Nah the thought of polygamy frightens Utahns, officially
plural mariage is part of the church and still on the books. If things happened
for polygamy be made legal then it will open up the leadership of the church to
some uncomfortable questions.

AerilusMaximusBerryville, VA

April 17, 2014 8:39 a.m.

I support the original definition of marriage which is between a man and a
woman. Here's hoping that the lower courts allow states to create their
own laws to govern their states in how they see fit.

EsquireSpringville, UT

April 17, 2014 8:30 a.m.

The issue has to be dealt with by the Supreme Court. Cases in UT, OK, OH, MI
and elsewhere will necessitate it. The question is whether this Court will
establish a legacy on the issue similar to Dred Scott or Brown v. Board of
Education. Either way, it will be epic and explosive.

slcdenizent-ville, UT

April 17, 2014 6:52 a.m.

@wrz

'You can't have equal protection for gays/lesbians re
marriage and not have the same equal protection for polygamist, marrying your
mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree, or a myriad of other possible marriage
combinations."

It's these types of frivolous arguments that
further convince me that I'm on the right side of this debate. But by all
means, continue to make silly arguments and those interested in honest debate
will be drawn to the better ones.

EstoPerpetuaHolden, MA

April 17, 2014 6:27 a.m.

Perhaps the "opponents" of equal rights for LGBTs will pay the LGBT
taxes so they can have their unequal rights imposed on the LGBT community.
:>)

Values VoterLONG BEACH, CA

April 17, 2014 6:04 a.m.

wrz wrote:

"You can't have equal protection for
gays/lesbians re marriage and not have the same equal protection for polygamist,
marrying your mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree, or a myriad of other
possible marriage combinations."

and

"Yeah, read
the law."

I see you're still offering your slippery-slope
arguments. Rather than repeat my question to you in a previous thread, I'll
simply assign you these three SCOTUS cases to read:

1.) Reynolds v.
United States (DN readers should be familiar with that one). "Having Reynolds on the books for 135 years establishes weighty stare
decisis considerations." From the Bostic brief

2.) Zablocki v.
Redhail

3.) Loving v. Virginia

"In the real world,
there are unlikely to be facial class-action challenges to consanguinity laws.
And if facial or as-applied challenges should someday be filed, courts have the
doctrinal tools from Zablocki and Loving to decide them."

Also
from the Bostic brief

WillemLos Angeles, CA

April 17, 2014 5:49 a.m.

Victory for the LGBT community is undisputable.

koseightyThe Shire, UT

April 17, 2014 1:16 a.m.

If the passage of marriage equality will mean the automatic legalization of
polygamy, the members of the LDS church should be overjoyed at the prospect of
being able to live that portion of the gospel denied them since the 1890s by an
evil federal government. ;o)

Bob Kportland, OR

April 17, 2014 12:49 a.m.

Only in Utah

Would so many commenters keep bringing up polygamy.
Apart from other issues, polygamy is considered by most of the country to be
weird and unconscionable. Utahns, if they could take the fact that marriage
equality threatens the lds church out of their minds, would notice that it works
works well in MA and other places for many years.

All of this,
including Prop 8, is about the catholic and lds churches being based on
procreation, and having no room for Gay married couples.

And only in
Utah and a few other places would one hear the lie "trying to re-define
marriage", as an argument against equal treatment.

Only 180 years
ago, the lds actually did "re-define marriage", then they later
re-defined it again, under much pressure, that many here still resent.

People who live in glass marriage definitions ought not to throw stones.

HutteriteAmerican Fork, UT

April 16, 2014 10:58 p.m.

Two trains, speeding along parallel tracks towards a huge concrete wall called
the constitution. I guess it's a matter of who gets there first.

LovelyDeseretGilbert, AZ

April 16, 2014 10:54 p.m.

I thought it showed the weakness of the arguments for those who are trying to
redefine marriage as Judge Lucero kept trying to prevent the redefiners'
attorney from answering the tough questions.

With that said, the
appellant Judges will affirm the Oklahoma district court ruling and then send
the Utah ruling back on remand to determine if Utah has a compelling interest to
define marriage in light of their polygamist history.

interventionslc, UT

April 16, 2014 10:25 p.m.

@alfredFunny the courts disagree

Also Please do tell us how
those countries have become more "uncivilized" and do please show us the
evidance supporting a causal link between gay marriage and this negative shift
you believe exist.

tedward55Little Rock, AR

April 16, 2014 10:21 p.m.

@wrz Laws have to have a "rational basis" for existence and to be
defensible in court. So far opponents of SSM have not been able to present a
rational basis for their law banning it. In the cases of "polygamist,
marrying your mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree, or a myriad of other
possible marriage combinations" states could very easily present rational
basis for their laws banning them. Big difference

AlfredPhoenix, AZ

April 16, 2014 10:16 p.m.

@Stormwalker:"SSM has been legalized in a number of very civilized
countries, including Canada."

And by doing so they have taken
giant steps toward becoming uncivilized.

"Please list."

I did list... polygamy.

If you want more added to the list,
try marrying your mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree (see wrz above).

Also kids marrying. You might have seen an article recently that the
youngest parents on record were a 12 year (girl) old and a 13 year old (boy).
Whether they are married or not is not clear.

@intervention:"Just because a state passed a law does not make it
constitutional..."

Doesn't make it unconstitutiona, either.

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

April 16, 2014 9:59 p.m.

@WRZ

the problem is your argument breaks down before it even starts
you want to play a black and white zero sum game of either you have to be for
everything or nothing then attempt exclude yourself from the game. following
your logic if you are for heterosexual marriage you must also support all other
forms of marriage. Simply because you have decided that heterosexual marriage is
the only proper form of marriage does not buy you a pass any more then those
that may have decided heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage are the
only appropriate forms of marriage or do not take a position on other forms of
marriage.

interventionslc, UT

April 16, 2014 9:03 p.m.

@wrz

Just because a state passed a law does not make it
consitutional or simply a matter of fact as you would like to pretend.

Stormwalker Cleveland , OH

April 16, 2014 8:47 p.m.

@Alfred

SSM has been legalized in a number of very civilized
countries, including Canada.

In which ones has it led to "If
it's game, set, match for SSM, it also has to be game, set, match for
dozens of other type of marriage relationships that can beconjured... such as
polygamy... and you name it."?

Please list.

wrzPhoenix, AZ

April 16, 2014 8:39 p.m.

@slcdenizen:"These are the appeals, which will likely err on the side
of equal protection."

If the judges rule for SSM they will have
certainly erred.

You can't have equal protection for
gays/lesbians re marriage and not have the same equal protection for polygamist,
marrying your mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree, or a myriad of other
possible marriage combinations.

@intervention:"It does not
include people who happen to have feelings" why... Because the state
says?"

Yeah, read the law.

AlfredPhoenix, AZ

April 16, 2014 7:55 p.m.

@Henry Drummond:"If the Marriage Equality advocates prevail in that
argument, then as far as striking down bans on same sex marriage, its Game, Set,
Match."

If it's game, set, match for SSM, it also has to be
game, set, match for dozens of other type of marriage relationships that can
beconjured... such as polygamy... and you name it.

And if it's
game, set match the courts will have gotten themselves in a heap-a trouble
essentially nullifying the age old institution of marriage.

interventionslc, UT

April 16, 2014 7:50 p.m.

@wrrz "It does not include people who happen to have feelings"
why, because you say? Because the state says? Sorry it does not work that way?

slcdenizent-ville, UT

April 16, 2014 7:46 p.m.

@wrz

"How difficult is that to comprehend and make a judgement
on?"

It's not, that's why the rulings have been made.
These are the appeals, which will likely err on the side of equal protection.
Definitely not rocket science here, folks.

wrzPhoenix, AZ

April 16, 2014 7:21 p.m.

It ain't all that tough. That's alotta brainpower (three judges) for
a simple issue..."Equal protection under the law."

And the
law in question is a Utah law which basically states that all marriages much
comport to a certain set of circumstances.... one man/woman, no family members,
no polygamy, no close relatives such as first cousins, certain minimum age, etc.
It does not include people who happen to have feelings such as love or other
types of attraction for another like another man, another man's wife or his
own mother, father, brother or married neighbor. It applies to all citizens
across the board. How difficult is that to comprehend and make a judgement on?

Henry DrummondSan Jose, CA

April 16, 2014 6:25 p.m.

I've read the briefs in both cases. Overall, I would say that the Marriage
Equality advocates in the Oklahoma case have the most provocative arguments.
They center their case around the fact that in three Supreme Court cases
affecting Gay Rights (Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor,) the majority applied a
heightened level of scrutiny rather than rational basis.

I strongly
suspect that the Tenth Circuit Court is going to make some sort of ruling on
that specific issue. This seems to be the aspect of the case receiving
relatively little notice from the press. If the Marriage Equality advocates
prevail in that argument, then as far as striking down bans on same sex
marriage, its Game, Set, Match.